The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1887-09-27
SHARP NEARING SING SING.
THE GENERAL TERM OF THE SUPREME
COURT AREYRMS HIS CONVECTION

THE GENERAL TERM or THE SUPREME
COURT AFETRMS HIS CONVECTION
judges Daniels. van Brunt. Bartlett, and
Brady Concur In Sustaining the Order OF
the Lever Court-sharp Receives the
News without Emotion, but bis Wife 10
overcome by it-To TO to sing Sing ON
Friday UnIess n Stay 10 Granted.
Tho long-looked-for decision In the appeal
OF the Sharp case came Unexpectedly yester-
day afternoon. The General Term OF tho Su-
prone Court then confirmed tho judgment Of
conviction In tho Court Of Oyer and Torminer.
To the sick and aged prisoner at Ludlow street
jail the news Of the failure OF his appeal came
like death knell to his hopes. The public re-
ceived the news with greater equanimity.
Very few persons expected that the decision
would DO announced yesterday, and whom the
General Term convened at 2 +. NJ. no
one was present except the Judges. at
tendants, and court reporters. Pro-
siding Justice Van Brunt, Judge Bartlett and
Judge Brady occupied tho bench. Judge
Daniels was absent. The decision contains
written opinions from each Of the Judges.
They are unanimous in sustaining the verdict
OF the lower court and refusing to grant a new
trial. Judge Van Brunt announced that tho
Court was OF the unanimous opinion that no
error prejudicial to the defendants rights had
been committed on the trial. The order. he
said, will be settled on the judgment on next
Thursday morning
The main opinion covers 1870 closely written
pages Of foolscnp. It was written by Judge
Daniels. Judge Van Brunt contributes an
opinion covering thirty-six pages. Judge Brady
covers nine pages, and Judge Bartlett concurs
in comprehensive paragraph Judge Daniels
goes into the case at great length. After re-
viewing tho history OF the Broadway road. he
touches upon that count in tho indictment
against Sharp charging that he and others
bribed Alderman Fugraff and says OF the in
dictment that its charges are clearly and ex-
plicitly drawn. and disclose IL violation by this
Alderman and the defendants named in the in
dictment OF tho statute defining the crime Of
bribery" The opinion continues:
Concerning Its suiicency no serious grounds OF com
plant urged upon the argument OF the appeal but
the pressed upon the Court and which have
been answered with signal clesrnoss and ability relate
the sufciency Of the evidence given to prove the
allegations in the Indictment, tho admssibiy of i'm
portant parts Of such evidence. and the disposition
which made by the Court of legal propositions pre-
sented to 1t in tho charge gwen to the jury These arc
the important subjects requiring consideration for the
decision of the appeas and the first in order. and
is tho objection earnestly made that the case under
the evidence should have been submitted to the con-
sderation OF tho jury.
Judge Daniels then reviews the evidence of
Fulgraf regarding the doings OF the COM
bine." and states that 1t was essential to the
support OF the prosecution that this evidence
should DO accepted by the jury In their dis
position of the indictment. He says:
without 1t existed against tho defendant or his
associates with this fact established the salts
faction of the Jury and the further circumstances In
like manner proved that the defendant either by him
self cooperation with the other persons named in
the indictment raised this OF money and appropr
ated and paid 1t for this unlawful purpose his guilt
would be made out
Judge Daniels says Of Fulgrafrs perjury that
1t does not follow that because his testimony
was wilfully false before the Senate Committee
it should DO excluded from the consideration
OF the jury. and he cites authorities in support
Of this VIEW one 81 ~ ths eases to haydns
Daniels continues:
In the testimoney given before the Senatorial Com
Rm to
not until disclosure Of s was made that
ssass y facts pPe.ens.s psoSaSisy
Impress ,sef Upon his mind would be to
fence and the strength OF that motive considering the
induce h 70 make false statement under the oblga
tons ana sOemnltes OF an Oatn.
In reviewing the evidence concerning the
bills OF largo denomination. Judge Daniels says
that II was admissible, as 1t tended to cOrrobo-
rate Fulsratfs Testimony. and was sufficient to
Fu i and submitting It to the jury. ''''0
The opinion continues:
to
hold from the jury and is decision % submit tho case
the parties in always seek conceament Of
fhair
detection and when may be made gu. upon trial il
as was in thi. instance These eircan,
such as to point directly to the strong prob
sothsr with the ercuns.nces that the amour! required
ss ~ s ns M IN arxsa
At tho conclusion which they did by their verdict
Tho objections raised to Fulgrafrs testifyine
he expected to DO paid for it, Judge Daniels
says. was properly overruled, rs 1t showed tho
defendants connection, with the transaction.
Judge Barretts ruling that any evidence which
would be proper II Fulgraff was on trial should
be admitted Judge Daniels characterizes as
correct as far as Judge Barrett allowed il to
go, for that was evidence indirectly against
With regard to the objection that Pottles oyi;
to alter the railroad bill OF 1888. tended to
establish h another crime Judge ,; Daniels says
was set on getting a railroad on Broadway.
and was therefore admissible; He was not
upon trial for another crime, In speaking Of
jury. and the objection raised that the jury
would not discriminate. Judge Daniels says:
Jurors reading. thin king and nteigent men.
having control OF their incinations and judgments,
And where they are directed under the solemnty OF
their oaths to restrict particular species of evidence
exclusively to consideration aspect Of the case
may be supposed that they will have
the ability well the disposition comply with the
direction The law the existence OF this ability
control the action Of the mind, and do the author
tiles
Judge Daniels says of Sharp's evidence be-
fore the Senate committee that 1t was proper.
inasmuch rs 1t was not extorted from him. but
given voluntarily. He did not claim the priv
ileGe of witness that the answers were likely
This is one Of the points on which the defence
relied in their appeal. alleging that Sharp's ev
idence before the Senate Committee
should not have been admitted at
the trial because no had been com
PEELED. practically. to testify adversely to him
self. Judge Daniels says that the Senate com
mitteo was not a court OF justice. and that.
the witness was not compelled TO
answer questions likely to criminato him. Ho
likens the committee to n Grand jury or COM
hitting magistrate in its powers. 1t could not
compel the witness to answer such questions,
but, If he. did crminate himself of his, own
volition. his answers could be used as evidence
on his trial for crime. He says: